Opinions - Arizona 2020

On government ... A debate over efficiency, accountability and spending

Feb. 5, 2010 02:15 PM

A steep decline in tax revenues and a growing movement to reinvent government in Arizona have focused attention on such issues as government efficiency, accountability and spending. At The Arizona Republic's invitation, Darcy Olsen and Ken Strobeck engaged in an e-mail debate on these issues. Olsen is president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based independent government watchdog that supports the principle of free enterprise. Strobeck is executive director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, which represents 90 local governments in Arizona.

ARIZONA'S DEBT

Olsen: Arizonans want limited but effective government that delivers value for their tax dollars. Right now, government is growing largely unchecked, and legislators have frittered away millions buying massages for state bureaucrats and pursuing pet projects. All told, Arizona governments are $37 billion in debt. Interest payments already are so high that they constitute nearly one-quarter of today's $4 billion deficit. It's time for accountability and common sense.

A first step is closing the public checkbook to politician's whims. A strict constitutional spending limit will force legislators to focus on core government priorities. We've done without one our first 100 years, and the past few have shown what can happen in the absence of discipline, so how about it?

Strobeck: Debt financing, when used carefully and responsibly, is a financially prudent way to pay for long-term infrastructure, but not ongoing operational costs.

Would you like to wait 25 years before you could buy a new house, or build a new freeway, a water-treatment plant or police station? That's simply not reasonable or practical.

Arizona's Constitution allows local communities to issue bonded debt financed by secondary property tax, but only with a vote of the people so they know what they're paying for. At the state level, balancing spending with available revenue is the major issue, not passing more laws.

BUDGET INNOVATION

Olsen: Unfortunately, debt financing hasn't been used carefully. We've amassed $37 billion in debt. How will our children afford the services their generation will need if they're saddled with our debts? We'd have all the funds we need for core services if government would focus on its constitutional purpose to protect individual rights and let the private sector innovate.

We could save millions, like New Zealand, by eliminating district bureaucracies and allowing schools to become charters. Management companies have offered to help state parks, but government says it would rather shut parks than let businesses keep them open. Innovative budget-saving options like these would leave the state checking account full to pay for police stations and core responsibilities. Can we agree that requiring local and state budget transparency would help taxpayers keep watch on government excess?

Strobeck: The private sector does a great job of designing and constructing infrastructure - that's why governments solicit competitive bids and make awards for projects to private companies. The role of government is to prioritize projects based on the needs of the people, to raise financial resources and to oversee the public investment to ensure it is used wisely and efficiently. The result is a double benefit: private-sector jobs and essential infrastructure for people and business.

As for transparency, bring it on! Cities and towns in Arizona hold all their budget discussions in public, invite public input and comment and publish their budget documents and audits on their Web sites. Shouldn't all levels of government do the same?

LIMITED GOVERNMENT

Olsen: Three cheers! Let's go one step further and think "check register." Cities and towns sometimes use broad budget categories as a smokescreen to cover up particular expenses. Taxpayers deserve transparency down to the individual expenditure level because the devil is always in the details.

Speaking of local government, did you know that two new local governments are created every day in America? Special districts and local governments make taxing decisions daily and operate with limited oversight. We can afford citizens more protection against local overreach by adopting local liberty charters committing cities to the principles of limited government.

Protecting Arizona's term limits in the state Legislature will also shield citizens against the dangerous concentrations of power we see in Washington, D.C., making sure fresh, young champions for liberty have a seat at the table.

Strobeck: One of the great things about America is that the people are in charge of the government. For example, they have the freedom to vote to create a special taxing district to pave a road or put in street lighting - that's democracy in action. Running a city or town is a complex enterprise, comparable to running a business but with every decision made in the open. Anyone who has a question about a municipal bid, contract or expenditure can get that information just by asking for it.

But let's make sure we don't pile on more unnecessary busywork and expense onto local governments that are already laying off employees. At the state level, we need to increase legislative salaries so it's not an impossible hardship for talented people to run. I'd like to see Senate terms go back to four years as our state founders intended, and allow legislators to serve for up to 12 years. We need people who are focused on the long-term view for our state.

TRANSPARENCY

Olsen: When my colleague Nick Dranias asked Phoenix to share its proposed budget reductions last week, the office of public information replied with this gem: "There are no such records." Who knew the City Council worked with invisible ink? Sounds like Phoenix is basking in the bureaucratic art of stonewalling. Until we require cities to post information, non-compliance and excessive waste will continue. And to pay for a few interns to post this information, how about redirecting a few surplus dollars from one of the eight luxury golf courses the city owns? It all boils down to priorities. Government exists to protect our rights, not run our lives, and we have plenty of resources for that job. The sooner Arizona gets back to that notion, the better.

Strobeck: I feel bad for the nearly 1,400 Phoenix employees, including police officers and firefighters, whose jobs are being eliminated due to the economy and local revenue declines. And I'm sorry for the citizens of the city who will be receiving reduced services. But that's what responsible governments do - they live within their means, just like families have to.

When the city had been able to notify those personnel whose positions were being eliminated, it released the information in full. In fact, I found details of each position being cut on The Arizona Republic's Web site. That doesn't sound like stonewalling to me.